Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
The Education of Gifted Children
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- References 509
|
The Education of Gifted Children 507 demonstrated ability are included in the gifted program, the nature of the program will necessarily have to change. Verbally articulate, culturally enriched, middle- or upper- middle-class will not longer be the typical profile of charac- teristics of children within the gifted program, and curriculum content and instruction will need to respond to a more varied range of interests, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. These issues will likely frame both research and practice in the upcoming decade. Another lesson from the studies of talented individuals is the important role of out-of-school agencies in developing talent. Many parents who have financial resources seek addi- tional services and programs for their talented children from universities, summer camps, and other organizations. How- ever, tuition costs make lack of access an important issue and potentially can increase the inequities between talented stu- dents of varying economic levels. An important role for gifted education is forging a closer connection between schools and community organizations and institutions in the service of educating children. Communities can offer opportunities for students to connect with mentors and to have internships, ad- ditional classes, and enrichment experiences. Gifted educa- tion needs to move beyond the school walls to provide the kinds of experiences that talented children need to develop high levels of talent and to remain engaged, motivated, and challenged. Lauren Sosniak (1998) calls for children’s in- volvement in communities of practice or adult worlds where they can work as novice yet contributing members. These kinds of experiences may be vital to the development of talent because they can affect both the acquisition of needed skills and attitudes and also increase motivation to succeed. Articulation and cooperation between outside-of-school agencies such as universities and museums and schools is also critical if schooling moves beyond the school walls. It is not unusual for schools to deny students credit or appropriate placement for courses that they have taken outside their local school. Examples included denying high school credit for Algebra I taken in the eighth grade at the elementary or mid- dle school or denying credit for a course taken at a university summer program (Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 1996). Concerns about the quality of outside courses certainly affect schools’ decisions about credit and placement, but if schools cannot provide the needed courses at the appropriate time for gifted students (which may mean earlier than for most students), they must be more willing to work with outside agencies to do so. The boundaries between levels of schooling must become more fluid and the dependence on age for placement into classes less rigid to meet the needs of gifted children. A theme that emerges from the research on practices in gifted education is the importance of teacher training. It is clear that teachers will improve in the identification of gifted students and provision of differentiated curriculum and in- struction if given training. It is also clear that training must involve much more than is typically thought of as profes- sional development—that is, attendance at a workshop or conference—and is more likely to succeed in changing teacher behaviors if modeling and mentoring are provided for an extended length of time. In the Archambault et al. (1993) study cited earlier, 61% of the teachers had not had any in- service training in gifted education despite the fact that their average length of teaching was 10 years. Little more than half of the states in the United States currently require teachers to have special endorsements or certificates to teach gifted students. Preservice training in gifted education typically consists of a few hours of instruction within the Exceptional Children course. Only when there is recognition that meeting the educational needs of gifted students does require special techniques and methods that must be specifically taught to and acquired by teachers will this situation change. A final issue that will affect gifted education is the potential role of distance education in helping to serve gifted students. Already, virtual high schools and universities exist offering advanced curricula to learners from diverse schools and back- grounds. Distance education has the potential to completely reorganize the way special advanced classes can be offered and increase access to them dramatically. It also has the potential to relegate gifted education to outside agencies as schools find it easier to use these programs in lieu of making substantial accommodations in their basic curricula and programs. Despite the research presented in this chapter, there is a paucity of studies on the effectiveness and outcomes of differ- ent types of program models—particularly at the secondary level. Specifically, research on cooperative programs between schools and community institutions or schools and universi- ties is needed as well as research about program models that effectively serve a diverse group of gifted children. Many in- novative approaches are being tried, but few are being tested and adequately evaluated. Although there is considerable re- search on several practices within the field, the literature on best practices is still relatively limited. Along with best practices, more research is needed on the types of training and professional development models that help teachers to acquire the skills they need. And finally, more research is needed on why attitudes toward certain practices such as acceleration continue to be negative despite the overwhelming positive research support for the practice. Research is sorely needed on how to use research in this field to effect change and affect school policies and classroom practices.
508 Gifted Education Programs and Procedures REFERENCES Ai, X. (1999). Creativity and academic achievement: An investiga- tion of gender differences. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 329–338.
Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs: University of Connecticut. Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise. What becomes of high school valedictorians. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(2), 169–182. Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1994). Individual differences amongst the mathematically gifted: Their educational and voca- tional implications. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambrosen (Eds.), Talent development. Proceedings from the
Psychology Press. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Academic precocity: Aspects
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. College Board. (1999). Reaching the top: A report of the National Task Force on Minority High Achievement. New York: Author. Columbus Group. (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of the meet- ing of the Columbus Group, Columbus, OH. Council of the State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (1996). The 1996 state of the states gifted and talented education report. Helena, Montana. Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. The early mental
sity Press. Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners.
Press.
Cramond, B. (1994). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From creation through establishment of predictive validity. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Longitudinal
Ablex.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1994). The domain of creativity. In D. H. Feldman, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Changing the world. A framework for the study of creativity (pp. 135–158). Westport, CT: Praeger. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
Cambridge University Press. Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. London: Little, Brown.
Delcourt, M. A. B., Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. Storrs: University of Connecticut. Fasko, D., Jr. (2001). An analysis of multiple intelligences theory and its use with the gifted and talented. The Roeper Review,
Feldhusen, J. F., Hoover, S. M., & Saylor, M. F. (1990). Identifica- tion and education of the gifted and talented at the secondary level. Unionville, NY: Trillium. Feldhusen, J. F., & Jarwan, F. A. (1993). Gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and develop- ment of giftedness and talent (pp. 233–251). New York: Pergamon Press. Feldman, D. H. (1981). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. In D. Feldman (Ed.), New directions for child development: Vol. 17. Developmental approaches to gifted- ness and creativity (pp. 31–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feldman, D. H. (1986a). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of gifted-
Feldman, D. H. (1986b). Nature’s gambit. Child prodigies and the development of human potential. New York: Basic Books. Fishkin, A. (1999). Issues in studying creativity in youth. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investi-
Press.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students. New York: Teachers College Press. Gagne, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69–88). New York: Pergamon Press. Gagne, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the language of the field. The Roeper Review,
Gagne, F. (1998). A proposal for subcategories within gifted or talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(2), 87–95. Gagne, F. (1999). My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts, and talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(2), 109–136.
Gallagher, J. J., & Courtright, R. D. (1986). The educational defini- tion of giftedness and its policy implications. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 93–111). New York: Cambridge University Press. References 509 Gardner H. (1983). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelli- gences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school. Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences.
Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little, Brown. Johnson, A. S., & Fishkin, A. S. (1999). Assessment of cognitive and affective behaviors related to creativity. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 265–306). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Karnes, F. A., & Marquart, R. G. (2000). Gifted children and legal issues. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press. Keller-Mathers, S., & Murdock, M. C. (1999). Research support for a conceptual organization of creativity. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating cre- ativity in youth (pp. 49–71). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs: University of Connecticut. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1993). The study of mathematically precocious youth. The first three decades of a planned 50 year study of intellectual talent. In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies in contemporary gifted education (pp. 255–281). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commission of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. McCarthy, C. (1999). Dual enrollment programs: Legislation helps high school students enroll in college courses. Journal of
Meador, K. S., Fishkin, A. S., & Hoover, M. (1999). Research-based strategies and programs to facilitate creativity. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 389–416). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (1993). Prodigies and savants: What they have to tell us about giftedness and human cognition. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), Interna- tional handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 161–184). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well- being: What does the empirical literature say? The Roeper
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1995). A summary of research regarding early college entrance. Roeper Review, 18(2), 121–125. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Special summer and Saturday pro- grams for gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Allyn and Bacon. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1998). Research evidence regarding the validity and effects of talent search educational programs. Jour- nal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9(3), 134–138. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood gifted- ness to adult creative productiveness: Psychological characteris- tics and social supports. The Roeper Review, 23(2), 65–71. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Laubscher, L. (1996). The impact of a college counseling program on economically disadvantaged gifted students and their subsequent college adjustment. Roeper
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Laubscher, L., Wohl, V., & Grant, B. (1996). Issues and factors involved in credit and placement for accelerated coursework. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8(1), 5–15. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Limburg-Weber, L. (1999). Designs for excellence: A guide to educational program options for academ- ically talented middle school and secondary school students. Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. Passow, A. H. (1993). National/state policies regarding education of the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.),
Pyryt, M. C. (1999). Effectiveness of training children’s divergent thinking: A meta-analytic review. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 351–366). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. M., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. Storrs: University of Connecticut. Renzulli, J. S. (1990). Three ring conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A schoolwide plan for the development of creative productivity. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216–266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press. Roe, A. (1953). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead. Rogers, K. B. (1991).The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs: University of Connecticut. Rogers, K. B. (1999). Is creativity quantitatively measurable? In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), 510 Gifted Education Programs and Procedures Investigating creativity in youth (pp. 217–237). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Sacuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E., & Guertin, T. L. (1994). Identifying
No. ERIC Report 368095) Sapon-Shevin. (1996). Beyond gifted education: Building a shared agenda for school reform. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(20), 194–214. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling needs and programs for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.),
Sosniak, L. (1998, May). The development of talent: Welcoming youth into communities of practice. Presentation at the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Iowa City, IA. Sosniak, L. (1999). An everyday curriculum for the development of talent. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10(4), 166–172. Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (1991). The academic acceleration of gifted children. New York: Teachers College Press. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C. (1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The context and development of program options. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of gifted- ness and talent (pp. 387–410). New York: Pergamon Press. Sternberg. R. J. (1986). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of gifted-
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22(4), 231–234. Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1994). Beyond Terman. Contem- porary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Subotnik, R. F., & Coleman, L. J. (1996). Establishing the founda- tions for a talent development school: Applying principles to creating an idea. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(2), 175–189.
Subotnik, R. F., Karp, D. E., & Morgan, E. R. (1989). High IQ children at mid-life: An investigation into the generalizability of Terman’s “Genetic Studies of Genius.” Roeper Review, 11(3), 139–144.
Subotnik, R. F., Miserandino, A., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Implications of the Mathematics Olympiad studies for the development of mathematical talent in schools. International
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D. (in press). Beyond Bloom: Revisiting environmental factors that enhance or impede talent development. In J. Borland & L. Wright (Eds.), Rethinking gifted education: Contemporary approaches to meet- ing the needs of gifted students. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children. Psychological and edu- cational perspectives. New York: Macmillan. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1990). Giftedness: A psycho-social approach. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of gifted-
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius:
Press.
Terman L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1957). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life; Thirty-five years’ follow- up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tookey, M. E. (1999/2000). The International Baccalaureate program: A program conducive to the continued growth of the gifted adolescent. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(2), 52–66.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. PIP 93-1201. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Key issues and problems in secondary programming. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in edu- cating gifted & talented learners (pp. 241–260). Denver, CO: Love.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: Basic Books. Winner, E., & Martino, G. (1993). Giftedness in the visual arts and music. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of
Press.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press. |
